At 1:34 PM +0100 12/4/06, TSa wrote:
The coolest solution would be to have Bag in a module from where it
supertypes Set when used. In this way you get the (x) to mean set
operations unless a 'use Bag' is in scope. This supertyping approach
would allow further Set supertypes like FuzzySet. But I d
HaloO Darren,
you wrote:
I consider the current KeyHash|KeySet|KeyBag|Set|Bag etc in Synopsis 6
to be a good solution for users of sets and bags.
They are fine as far as the definition goes. But I guess it
intentionally leaves certain things unmentioned.
I do not understand the rationale to
At 6:53 PM +0100 12/1/06, TSa wrote:
HaloO Larry,
you wrote:
I think a consequence of this view is that (x) ops are all key-based set
ops unless you explicitly make sure both sides are bags. But it's still
early enough in the morning that I've not thought this through entirely...
I understand
HaloO Larry,
you wrote:
I think a consequence of this view is that (x) ops are all key-based set
ops unless you explicitly make sure both sides are bags. But it's still
early enough in the morning that I've not thought this through entirely...
I understand that you want first of all 'KeyHash
